joining in a bit late but looking at the 3 lens comparison posted i have to say I just don't see how the Leica is superior. The CV just doesn't look like its focused on the same spot and to my eye the zeiss is best but by a slight margin in the photos posted. i've enjoyed immensely photos posted from all three on the alt forum and I find that the photographer is much more important than the differences between these lens. That said, I own only one and it's the zeiss because I have a preference for how it renders and I can't afford them all (plus it just gets distracting to me if there are too many lenses to choose from in the bag).

j.liam wrote:
And sample variation on the lower priced Vogtländer (new, $999 vs Leica $5000 vs Zeiss $1800) is likely to have been greater. Testing 2nd hand equipment that hasn't been checked out and adjusted to spec, without knowing what it went through previously even if it looks mint, is another variable.

I guess any lens can suffer from sample variation, but this is the first time I've heard the argument applied to the CV125.

StevenPA wrote:
What would define the CV125 for you? The auto aperture? (I believe this was one of the first lenses to offer such a convenience for Canon alt users.) The APO characteristics? And for others willing to pay such a premium for this lens, what's the attraction? Just asking...

I suppose in my opinion it doesn't need definition at all, to me it just seems to be the full package. APO, sure... 1:1, auto aperture, wonderful colour, nice bokeh, and of course sharp enough too. I guess if I have to define it, I would just say that I like using it, more than most other lenses.

sebboh wrote:
apo is a huge plus for macro as is 1:1 without an adapter. i'm also attracted to it's gentler rendering of oof areas since so much tends to be oof with macros. the lens seems plenty sharp as well. frankly, the example almass posted doesn't look unsharp to me, it just looks lower in local contrast (and overall contrast) with narrower dof. the in focus portion doesn't look like it is losing much to the other lenses in resolution. having said that, i'm not willing to pay the lenses current prices for it, but $1000 seems pretty tempting.

Yep, this pretty much sums it up for me too, in all regards except for sharpness. The Zeiss and Leica do have the edge there.

The differences I see at f/5.6 and f/11 are pretty much the same as the ones at f/2.8. Not much changed in bokeh characteristics, so the main difference is color rendering and contrast:
Leica: richest, most saturated color in yellow and red (pink).
Zeiss: more green and blue.
Voigtländer: most muted colors, and a bit of a yellow cast (which seems to take away some depth, or perhaps it's the longer FL doing this).

StevenPA wrote:
What would define the CV125 for you? The auto aperture? (I believe this was one of the first lenses to offer such a convenience for Canon alt users.) The APO characteristics? And for others willing to pay such a premium for this lens, what's the attraction? Just asking...

To be honest I was drawn to the rarity and hype of the lens. However when I went into a local camera shop I finally got to check out the Zeiss and it sure is dead sexy. But there was also CA in a lot of the test shots I took and that was a deal-breaker for me. I'd rather trade a little sharpness for APO.

Mr.Lindy wrote:
I had thought the Sigma overpriced compared to its earlier Sigma 150mm non IS version. But now seeing the discontinued Voigtlander continue to rise in price, I think the Sigma is a better deal for me.

Just my opinion form having used the CV and Leica (only briefly shot the Zeiss); weighing performance, construction, availability and value, the Leica 100 Makro APO is the best deal of them all if you particularly appreciate what an APO lens can do. The subtleties of color it renders is really something unique. It is readily available second-hand having been manufactured for 15 years (20,000 made according to Erwin Puts' data), and for about $1200-1500 will be a superior choice to the Sigma unless the longer FL is important.
AF on a macro lens is a less meaningful attribute.

One can only hope that Cosina sees the demand for this lens and bring out a new one, lets say for $800. Those $bay prices are just a consequence of it's rarity.
Maybe if I say pretty please, it will definitely make me sleep better knowing I can get a replacement if something happens to my current copy.

helimat wrote:
However, the 'test' Almass posted is hardly scientific, and certainly not in line with my copy of the CV 125/2.5.

It's a lot more scientific than just claiming that your copy is sharper, without proof. Also, how the hell do you know that, when he haven't told us anything about sharpening and PP? You don't even have the same camera, right?

I've got a couple old Kino Precision made Vivitar Series 1 for manual focus macro:

Last year made 1984 105mm f2.5 Ai-s & a 1st year made 1977 90-180mm f4.5 Ai flat field zoom.

At the moment they serve me well along with Nikon 55mm f2.8 Micro Ai-s.

Seeing the collector value tripled thesedays on the 125mm Voigt,
I bet I'll give the 150mm OS APO Siggy a try soon to see what's up with its image stabilized output & autofocusing. Even it's weather resistence could be handy too.

As the Sigma 150mm is brand new, I could trade it for another if a get a QC challenged sample.

j.liam wrote:
Just my opinion form having used the CV and Leica (only briefly shot the Zeiss); weighing performance, construction, availability and value, the Leica 100 Makro APO is the best deal of them all if you particularly appreciate what an APO lens can do. The subtleties of color it renders is really something unique. It is readily available second-hand having been manufactured for 15 years (20,000 made according to Erwin Puts' data), and for about $1200-1500 will be a superior choice to the Sigma unless the longer FL is important.
AF on a macro lens is a less meaningful attribute.

My Sigma 150 (for Canon) is a sharp lens yes - but it is also a contrasty lens as well - does not pick up subtle tones as well as my Voigtlander...and the Voigt is APO as well. To my eye the Voigt is so much better - especially with subtle colors that the Sigma would record as near white.

I'd say it's nearly impossible to compare pics someone else shot with unknown processing, subject, light, etc. to something you're imagining a lens you own can do. Not saying it wasn't a bad copy, but I'm also not sure if it indeed was. For the sake of public wisdom I should've tried a second copy or have it ckecked by Sigma. In the end I went the easy way and just sent it back, also because it's a b*tch to focus outside the macro range.

Makten wrote:
It's a lot more scientific than just claiming that your copy is sharper, without proof. Also, how the hell do you know that, when he haven't told us anything about sharpening and PP? You don't even have the same camera, right?

Well, I left a link. Not scientific either I suppose. However I never made a claim that it was.